Newsletter No. 1193
Editorial-Opinion
November 4, 2008

 

GENERAL TAMOGAMI’S BEAUTIFUL NATION

Yesterday, former ASDF Chief of Staff General Toshio Tamogami walked before reporters and gave an unapologetic defense of his ideas. Give the man credit for the courage of his convictions at least. In this age of deferred responsibilities, he stood up to cameras and made his case. He told the truth as he understands it.

Unfortunately, General Tamogami doesn’t understand much. He argued: “It is necessary to revise the view that Japan did wrong during the war, if it wishes to prosper as a nation in the 21st century.” We surmise that Tamogami’s logic runs as follows: Japanese today are not sufficiently patriotic. They lack patriotism because they have accepted the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal view of history that Japan was an aggressor and brought the tragedy of defeat on itself. If Japan is to regain its strength in the new century, this masochistic view must be put to an end. Japanese need to find a new understanding in which they were victims of Western machinations and Asian nationalism.

Although we cannot say that Tamogami is 100% mistaken in his beliefs about history and politics, he is quite wrong enough. In the first place, does pride in one’s nation really require the belief in its infallibility? Does it require the beautification of the past in order to create a beautiful future? Aren’t the Tamogamis of the world precisely the kind of fools who never learn from history and thus make all the same mistakes? Would the Iraq War have ever happened had the US leaders and people a clearer view of their own past –- one not experienced through the intoxicating mists of American nationalist sentiment?

Not least among the moral dilemmas raised by people like Toshio Tamogami is that, by their own lights, they are often both sincere and well-intentioned. Tamogami even has a species of courage in his defiant performance before the glare of the cameras. But do ignorant people have a moral responsibility not to be ignorant? Is it fair to judge people on the basis of their intellectual limitations, or for their lack of wisdom?

Generally speaking, I would answer “yes” to this question -- especially if they are people who have grasped for political power. In my experience, most people believe what they want to believe, and not what the facts indicate. They prefer the comfort of their own beliefs to realities that may disturb their world view. The uncertainties of life are terrifying. Most people prefer to lodge themselves in their own ideological pleasure zone in which “we” are good and “they” are bad. They don’t want to even consider the idea “we” and “they” may actually be very much the same when it gets down to it.

None of these insights are unique to me. Anyone with a desire to learn and a library card can discover that many others have already exposed the traits of people like Toshio Tamogami. Consider, for example, these passages from the May 1945 essay “Notes on Nationalism” by George Orwell:

Nationalism… is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality… The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also -- since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself -- unshakeably certain of being in the right… As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance… He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags, relative size of headlines and the order in which different countries are named. Nomenclature plays a very important part in nationalist thought… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

In my analysis, this kind of nationalism has been on the rise in Japan. Flags must now be displayed. Teachers must stand for the national anthem at the risk of punishment. The Nanjing Massacre and tales of “comfort women” must be debunked. The militarism that crept into the American soul is creeping into the souls of their close allies as well. The real nations have given way to the beautiful nations.

Remember the so-called “lesson” of the Persian Gulf War? Japanese financial support was not enough. Young Japanese boys and girls had to sweat and die at the sides of American boys and girls. Peace is irresponsible. Peace is dishonorable. Note to the US alliance managers: The Tamogamis of Japan have gotten your message.

“There are some people who share my views,” declared General Tamogami at his press conference yesterday. He is right: There always have been -- and that’s precisely why Japan must be handled much more carefully than the Bush Administration was ever capable of.

COMMENTARY

1) From Alex Calvo of the Instituto General Gutierrez Mellado and European University in Barcelona on November 4, 2008:

I was wondering whether we could somehow link the two most recent debates on the list. I have read General Tamogami’s essay (the English translation) and Islam is not directly mentioned, however the “Five Tribes,” the Racial-Equality proposal at Versailles, and Manchukuo’s multiethnic make-up are. Has he ever expressed any opinions on Muslim immigration? How were Muslim minorities in China and India perceived by the Imperial Army? Maybe other list members have thoughts on this.

2) From Michael Penn of the Shingetsu Institute on November 15, 2008:

Alex Calvo asked some questions a week and a half ago that no one tried to answer. Since I don’t want to leave his queries just hanging there, this is my personal response.

Has [General Tamogami] ever expressed any opinions on Muslim immigration?

Not to my knowledge. I have not seen anything in the press that indicates his feelings about recent Japanese immigration issues.

How were Muslim minorities in China and India perceived by the Imperial Army?

There are others on this list better qualified than me to try to answer this question. My understanding would be roughly as follows. The mainstream of the Imperial Army had no interest whatsoever in Muslims. However, a minority of officers believed they saw potential in using Muslim minorities to weaken the Chang Kai-shek regime and the British position in India and beyond. This was the so-called “Kaikyo Seisaku” (Islam Policy). Finally, a tiny handful may have been relatively sincere in their Pan-Asianism, which included the notion that Japan and the Islamic world shared a common identity as victims of Western imperialism and were fellow Asian brothers.

2) From Adam Lebowitz of the Tsukuba University on November 16, 2008:

Tamogami: Cultural Warrior

Penn’s analyses strive to remain rooted in historical materialism, which is why I enjoy reading Shingetsu. Usually cultural essentialism in itself is not adequate to describe political situations, but we should not ignore these arguments completely. It has traction among the opinion-making class in Japan (as in Nihonjinron), and political actors may see themselves primarily through a cultural lens.

The Tamogami fracas is a case in point. Although the modern Japanese army founded in the 19th century was established initially to defeat the Shogun’s samurai army, the military is still seen by some as upholding the bushido tradition: Officers during World War II carried the katana sword to the battlefields of Southeast Asia. Without a doubt, Tamogami’s essay demonstrates a lazy intellect. He inaccurately quotes secondary data sources and does not reference primary documents, which he could have accessed given his position. More importantly, he is a conspiracy theorist looking to blame someone for the emasculation of the Japanese military and state -- in other words, he sees himself as a samurai without a sword.

The political consensus appears to be that former-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was irresponsible for assigning Tamogami his duties. But, what has been the military’s reaction? Teikyo University Professor Toshiyuki Shikata’s opinion piece in the November 13th Asahi Shinbun manages to be both reassuring and disquieting. Shikata was a former high-ranking officer in the GSDF. His first statement mirrors Prime Minister Taro Aso’s: The essay was inappropriate (futekisetsu). However, Shikata’s criticism appears more directed at form rather than content, saying in effect: “You idiot, we all feel this way, but this doesn’t help our case.” He argues for “normalizing” the armed forces through changing the Constitution, but also views civilian control as indispensible, and antagonizing China and South Korea as wrong. Tamogami’s essay throws a spanner in the works, and what’s more, it bypassed the chain of command when he did not submit his essay for prior review to his superiors. In Shikata’s view, Tamogami expected to be relieved of his duties for his actions and therefore committed a kind of career ritual suicide (seppuku).

Shikata also faults the political leadership for not articulating a clear understanding of the Imperial Army’s past crimes to the regional countries. As result, there has been no clear break with the past, and because an increasingly active SDF does not fit with the current Constitution, there is also not a clear way forward. Tamogami’s frustration is probably felt by many in the ranks.

Of course, it is wrong to offer only cultural explanations for the tenacity of militant nationalism in Japan. Another problem is the absence of alternative ideologies: Intellectual arguments favoring pacifism have not materialized alongside economic wealth. Politically the problem can be traced to 1960 when Abe’s grandfather, Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, rode roughshod over the establishment Left, forcing a renewal of the US Mutual Security Treaty. In fact, the only institutions that have consistently sought to inculcate the citizenry with current Constitutional principles are the schools. Unsurprisingly, the Teacher’s Union (Nikkyoso) is the Right’s bugbear and is targeted by both Tamogami and former Transport Minister Nariaki Nakayama. The Basic Law in Education was changed under Abe. Curricular Guidelines came into operation under his successor Yasuo Fukuda, with new language stating that children should be taught to value “traditional” culture.

It is fittingly ironic that in the end Tamogami’s behavior is not befitting a warrior. He retires with a healthy pension, is given his national stage to “say what he wanted to say,” and comes across mainly according to one critic as jikomanzoku -- self-satisfied. Cultural values apparently only go so far. On the other hand, we on the outside looking in can find the cultural argument useful in understanding how the actors justify their actions, at least to themselves.